Snow-Caked Traffic Lights

Ah yes… another unintended consequence of an environmental policy.

After converting 420 traffic signals to LEDs, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation discovered snow cakes onto the lights and does not melt.

The old light bulbs in the signals burned hot enough to melt snow, but the new light-emitting diodes don’t generate as much heat, so snow and ice can stick to them and block the signals, said Andrew Dirks, WisDOT southeast region electronic operations supervisor. It only occurs when the heavy, sticky snow is blowing, he said.

It is a problem on WisDOT traffic signals across the state, so the agency is testing lenses that cover the lights. For now, crews scrape the lights clean when the department receives complaints, Dirks said.

“We respond to inquiries that we have received from law enforcement,” he said. “We are not staffed to go out and clear 420 intersections.”

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the LED lights and think it’s great that they save cities money, but they really should think these things through before making such a change. 

1. This was a helpful story as I’ve encountered a few of these snow covered lights and been surprised I hadn’t seen them more in years past.  The funny part of the article was the mention of putting “heaters” on the lights, which would then negate the energy savings.

   Someone needs to call David Obey and get another $100 million in the stimulus plan to solve this issue.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2009 at 0828 hrs




2. I don’t think a heater would negate the energy savings unless it simply ran all year round. You could put a sensor on the light to have it only run the heater when the light is blocked by snow.

   Posted by Matt on January 30, 2009 at 0936 hrs




3. Sometimes the phrase “unintended consequences” actually means “unintended and unforeseen.”

   Posted by dad29 on January 30, 2009 at 0945 hrs




4. LED’s seem like a no-brainer to me when it comes to traffic lights.  LED’s have a useful life of 30 times that of a traditional bulb using about 1/8th of the electricity.

   Between the cost savings of the electricity and the “robust” labor cost of paying government workers to change traditional lightbulbs 30 times more frequently…

   I think the occasional “ice on a light” is a good trade off.  The last 2 winters in wisconsin have been unusually snowy.  Before we go getting reactionary with heaters on lights I think this could easily be addressed by the bulb manufacturers and technology.

   We have this thing called “sun” and its the greatest heater in the world.  And its f’ing FREE!    With the right lense or lense coating that absorbs the sun’s heat and dissipates it across the lense I’m sure there is a CHEAP technology fix to this “problem”. (and I question how much of a problem it REALLY is) Technology innovation is an evolutionary process and I’m happy to let the innovation process run its course on these.  I’m convinced if the caveman acted like we humans do today they’d have outlawed fire because it was just too dangerous.  I digress… 

   In the interim, I’m confident that we all know what to do when we come across a traffic signal that isn’t functioning and I’d rather have a police officer with a cheap telescoping scraper/pole in their trunk to address these issues on a case by case basis than throw the whole concept under the bus based upon a few exceptional circumstances. 

   Having said all that, I think I know the bigger idea behind what Owen is using this as an example of, (and while I think this example might not be the best example) but that is that with all the “hype” and “fashion” of being green and environmentally smart, we VERY often end up jumping at a new idea that sounds great but hasn’t been thought all the way through.  (example hybrid vehicles) (example ethanol)

   So the world needs the “early adopters”.  Trial and error IS part of the innovation process.  What we DON’T need is government mandates on things that are not yet fully tested.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2009 at 1058 hrs




5. Years ago there was a big push (actually it was a mandate) on installing electronic ballasts on flourescent light fixtures, to save energy and phase out the old style ballasts with PCBs.  The facility that I managed had all the hallway & exit fixtures on an emergency circuit.  The local power supply was “quirky” at times and occasionally the power would drop out & then when it came back on, we had to replace at least 50% of the ballasts each time.  A few years later, as computers became more prevalent, the technology & choice of interruptable power supply products improved greatly & we solved the problem by putting those circuits on an IPS.

   I remember in the late 70’s & early 80’s the issues people were having with brand new cars not starting in cold weather due to the increased complexity of carburators due to anti-pollution requirements. That laid the groundwork for fuel injection & then electronic fuel injection.  Nowadays I don’t think people even give a thought to their cars not starting in sub-zero weather, so long as they have a good battery & fuel.

   Seems like this is simply a case of innovation meeting real world conditions, and needing to adjust accordingly, and then at the end of the day things are much improved.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2009 at 1136 hrs




6. So they will use new lenses, the snow will not stick anymore, and tax dollars will be saved.  It is called innovation, which is a good thing.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2009 at 1200 hrs




7. Funny how Owen runs and blames the enviros, yet no mention of this being an effort to be more environmentally friendly is brought up in the article.  This was though…

   Racine paid $79,000 in electrical bills for street signals in 2000, but paid $38,000 in 2007 after installing the LEDs, he said.

   Seems like it would be more accurate to call this an unitended consequence of fiscal responsibility.  It is an easy fix, unfortunately I’m unsurprised at the nonsensical swipe at group of “liberals” though.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2009 at 1223 hrs




8. No I think the focus was that like most govt programs, there is a need to be on the bleeding edge of all the new stuff to please especially the enviros. I have a practice of never being a beta when it comes to production and I want to make sure that the process/tech/app is fully tested and run in less than critical prod before I put in critical prod situations. Enter the DNR last year that did not realise that the number of hunters applying for liscences for the turkey hunt would crash the system, enter the whole FUBARed situation with IT across the state and this situation with tech that is great in it’s optimal environment. Well we also want to put in trains that don’t run in snow… I am all for tech. I have quite a bit myself but it seems to me that questioning how the systems would react to something that occurs for 5-9 months out of the year in this state should have come up in the testing phase. I suppose it is easy though to screw up when someone elses money, time, and energy are involved. I do not agree that this tech was a bad idea but rather that like most govt projects, it was not thought through enough before production implementation.

   Posted by fishaddict on January 30, 2009 at 1248 hrs




9. Here’s a patent that’s been applied for:

   http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7211771.html

   Abstract
   A circuit is disclosed for detecting and eliminating the buildup of snow and/or ice on the viewable face of an LED traffic signal lens. The circuit measures the ambient temperature within the LED signal, and when the temperature falls to a level where snow and/or ice accumulation can occur, the circuit begins looking for snow and/or ice buildup on the lens of the LED signal. An infrared LED transmits a signal which is reflected when snow or ice is present on the lens of the traffic signal. When the reflected signal is received by an infrared receiver, it sends a signal to a microcontroller, which analyzes the signal to determine if it is a valid signal. If it is, a heater is turned on until the ice and snow are removed.

   Just curious, what exactly is the “mandate” that was applied here?  Reading the article, it sounds like the motivation was to save $$ & I also know that there is a factor of increased visibility (until individual leds go dark - that is something that has to be monitored too).  I don’t see where there was some kind of mandate or policy that made them do it, other than saving tax payer dollars.

   I guess we should just wait until China perfects the technology and it is utilized everywhere else in the world, and then the U.S. can follow.  No need for innovation here.  Maybe we can just wax nostalgic for the old days - hell, I can remember when West Bend only had a few traffic lights on Main Street (the first one on the south side was at Decorah, the last one was at Main & Washington), before West Bend became a bedroom community in the 60’s.

   I would also suggest, in the vein of this post, that the military be debarred from using any untested technologies.  That will save money too, and we can just wait until other countries have perfected those things, and then we can copy it.  Start with strategic weapons defense systems - that seems to be experimental at this point.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2009 at 1301 hrs




10. When the reflected signal is received by an infrared receiver, it sends a signal to a microcontroller, which analyzes the signal to determine if it is a valid signal. If it is, a heater is turned on until the ice and snow are removed.

    And if the microcontroller determines the signal is invalid it will automatically put in a repair order in the city’s maintenance tracking system, along with a property tax increase to fund the order.

    Posted by Aaron on January 30, 2009 at 1417 hrs




11. Just curious, what exactly is the “mandate” that was applied here?

    If you’re referring to my comment then you need to go back and read my whole post.  I’m sure that will clear up your confusion.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2009 at 1516 hrs




12. xxpilot, sorry to insult the intelligence of one of the most intelligent commenters at this site.  I guess you weren’t implying this was a mandate in this case, just that you didn’t want to see untested things mandated.

    The original post talks about an “environmental policy” and the tone of a few of the comments imply that too.  I guess I was wondering if there was any basis for that, or as John Faust once said somewhere else, sometimes these posts just “write themselves”.

    If I was so inclined, probably in the flotsam of the Internet Blogs, I could find a blogger at this very moment doing a post about some “idiotic/wasteful” municipality installing the conventional type of traffic lights, instead of the new style, energy-saving enhanced visibility type & if only the goverment could absorb by osmosis the superior intelligence of the blogging community, everything would be hunky-dory.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2009 at 1557 hrs




13. Conservatives need to separate questionable scientific claims (like global warming) from legitimate science (like light emitting diodes). If the argument is always ‘environmental whacko’ without supporting facts, the argument is always lost. Conservatives win the argument by reasoned support of conservation, biodiversity, and letting the private sector provide what the market demands.

    xxpilot made excellent points, the one missing is the fact that LED’s don’t lose brightness over their lifetime, like traditional bulbs.  The snow issue (if it really is one), is easily solved.  Ask Microsoft if it ever made money with defects in its software. Any product or process can be improved.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2009 at 0024 hrs




14. Again, read what I wrote.  I think LEDs are great.  I just think that, as fishaddict said, “it seems to me that questioning how the systems would react to something that occurs for 5-9 months out of the year in this state should have come up in the testing phase.”

    Indeed.

    Posted by Owen on January 31, 2009 at 0028 hrs




15. You know what MHT, when I’m mis-characterized peoples positions or skimmed a post of their and missed the point I’ve done them the courtesy of apologizing.  As soon and as quickly as possible. 

    Many times.  (would you like the links?)

    Can you not afford me the same courtesy?  You don’t have to camouflage your retraction in sarcasim. 

    “it seems to me that questioning how the systems would react to something that occurs for 5-9 months out of the year in this state should have come up in the testing phase.”

    from the article:

    The problem occurs once every few years in Racine, which converted 95 percent of its streetlights to LED,

    A problem that occurs once every few years…  I like those odds.  I’d go to market with a product with that effective rate.

    And I don’t have a problem with companies market testing their products.  “early adopters” typically understand the price tag of being “cool”  and a few years later we all can thank them for their willingness to guinea pig products for us.

    To be honest I"m a little impressed to see a government entity so ahead of the curve on something like this…  I just hope the cost savings make their way back to the taxpayers instead of funding more preferential entitlement spending.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2009 at 0153 hrs




16. And I would agree. If something has a failure rate such as this then it is not a horrible thing but remember having a streetlight out can cause injury or death. the govt. spends oodles of our money to save just one life. How many people don’t know that when they buy a knife it may be sharp? How many people iron their clothes while wearing them? How much of a lead hazard exists in my 6month old’s onesy? Yet, the litigious society states that warning labels be placed on irons and knives and the govt is not going to let me donate my childrens clothes, books, and so on because they need to be tested to the nth degree and certified lead free. While I commend the powers that made this decision to save time and money installing these things, I do believe I will give them the same benefit they give me when I want to prevent one accident, save just one life, or do it for the children.

    Posted by fishaddict on February 02, 2009 at 1042 hrs




17. Very interesting story.Very impressive.Words are insufficient to describe your work David. Keep it up!
    http://www.raleigh-durhamheatingandair.com/

    Posted by Jessica on February 11, 2009 at 2250 hrs